G.R. No. L-19779 July 30, 1966
RIZAL LABOR UNION, CARLOS SANTOS, EDILBERTO REYES, TEOFENES MINGUILLAN, APRONIANO CELAJES, AUGUSTO RAYMUNDO, CELESTINO RINO, EDMUNDO GARCIA, JOSE EVANCHES, MELENCIO ENRIQUEZ, PEDRO ANTAZO, BENJAMIN ONGKIATCO, FELIX ADSUARA, GREGORIO YUNZAL and VICENTE INAMAC, petitioners, vs. RIZAL CEMENT COMPANY, INC., JUAN DE LEON, RODOLFO FAUSTINO, BINANGONAN LABOR UNION LOCAL 104, FILOMENO PRUDON, NICANOR MEYCACAYAN, MACARIO CENIDOZA, APOLONIO SUMALDE, LOTARIO BATAN, FRANCISCO EVANGELISTA, DOMINGO PUBLICO, HON. ARSENIO MARTINEZ, Judge, Court of Industrial Relations, HON. EMILIANO TABIGNE, Judge, Court of Industrial Relations, and HON. AMANDO BUGAYONG, Judge, Court of Industrial Relations, respondents.

FACTS

On February 13, 1958, fifteen employees of Rizal Cement Company, while still members of the Binangonan Labor Union Local 104, formed the Rizal Labor Union. The company was notified on March 18, 1958. Prior to that, on March 15, 1958, the president and secretary of the new union received letters from the Binangonan Labor Union requiring them to explain within 48 hours why they should not be expelled for disloyalty. Despite their request for a general meeting to explain their side, the fifteen organizers were expelled from the original union on March 21, 1958. On the same day, the union demanded their dismissal from employment, which the company effected on March 22, 1958. The dismissed employees filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against the company and the union. The respondents defended the dismissal by citing the closed-shop proviso in their collective bargaining agreement. The trial judge held the proviso was valid but inadequate to justify the dismissal, ordering reinstatement and back wages. Upon reconsideration, the CIR en banc reversed, finding the dismissal justified by the closed-shop agreement, though granting separation pay. The complainants filed the present petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of the fifteen employees was justified, which hinges on the validity and adequacy of the supposed closed-shop proviso in the collective bargaining contract.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the CIR en banc. It ruled that the dismissal was not justified. The pertinent provisions of the collective bargaining agreement (Article I, Section 5 and Article VII, Section 1-d) did not establish a valid closed-shop agreement that required employees to remain members in good standing to keep their jobs. Following the precedent in Confederated Sons of Labor vs. Anakan Lumber Company, the Court held that such a stipulation must be clear and unequivocal, and doubts must be resolved against the existence of a closed shop. The agreement only required that persons hired or employed be union members at the commencement of employment, not that they must continue membership to retain employment. Therefore, the respondents were declared guilty of unfair labor practice. The company and the union were ordered to reinstate the complainants and pay jointly and severally their back wages from the date of dismissal until reinstatement, minus earnings elsewhere during the dismissal period. No costs were awarded.